Unpacking the «Organizational Imprinting Hypothesis»: Cultural Entrepreneurialism in the Founding of the Paris Opera

W O R K I N G P A P E R S Unpacking the «Organizational Imprinting Hypothesis»: Cultural Entrepreneurialism in the Founding of the Paris Opera February 2003 Victoria Johnson Department of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management University of Michigan Business School vjohnsn@bus.umich.edu Center on Organizational Innovation Columbia University in the City of New York 803 International Affairs, MC 3355 420 West 118th Street New York, NY 10027 http://www.coi.columbia.edu This online paper may be quoted under fair use and academic conventions. This paper may not be published elsewhere in any form (including e-mail lists and electronic bulletin boards) without the author's express permission. The prefered citation for this paper is: Victoria Johnson. February 2003. "Unpacking the «Organizational Imprinting Hypothesis»: Cultural Entrepreneurialism in the Founding of the Paris Opera, Working Paper Series, Center on Organizational Innovation, Columbia University. Available online at http://www.coi.columbia.edu/pdf/oih_vj.pdf.

1 ABSTRACT Arthur Stinchcombe s organizational imprinting hypothesis is frequently cited by organization theorists, yet the process by which imprinting takes place has remained black-boxed. This paper focuses on the first phase of the imprinting process, in which founders draw on elements from their political, cultural, and economic contexts to construct new organizations. These elements are of interest because they may come to influence an organization s structure and behavior long after the founding phase. I propose that this founding process be understood as one of cultural entrepreneurship, in which founders draw (with varying degrees of success) on available organizational repertoires and genres as they attempt to build their new organizations. Illustrating this process on the case of the Paris Opera, I aim in this paper to contribute to our understanding of how the highly consequential organizational imprinting phenomenon operates at the level of individual organizations.

2 INTRODUCTION In 1965, the organization theorist Arthur Stinchcombe noted that organizations formed at one time typically have a different social structure from those formed at another time. 1 Stinchcombe hypothesized that this phenomenon was due to the fact that organizations which are founded at a particular time must construct their social systems with the social resources available. 2 As they build new organizations, founders draw on elements from their political, cultural, and economic contexts. These elements of the organization may persist for years, decades, or even centuries, thus creating a link between the specific historical context of founding and the organization s later structure. This idea, known as the organizational imprinting hypothesis, eventually became a major source of inspiration for organizational ecologists, who made it the basis of one of their main lines of research. 3 However, because organizational ecologists study populations of organizations rather than individual organizations, their use of the organizational imprinting hypothesis has focused not on founding processes but instead on populationwide patterns. Another group of organization scholars who focus on foundings, scholars engaged in entrepreneurial studies, have, until recently, paid far more attention to the personal or social attributes of founders than to the processes by which founders build new organizations. The imprinting process has thus been left black-boxed, despite many dozens of passing references to Stinchcombe s hypothesis in the organizational literature. The present paper focuses on the first part of the process (the importation of environmental elements into a new organization at founding), setting aside the far more studied second part of this process (the reproduction of organizational elements over time). By proposing a theoretical framework for understanding the imprinting process and applying it to the case of the Paris Opera, I aim to contribute to our understanding of how the highly consequential imprinting phenomenon operates at the level of individual organizations. UNPACKING THE PROCESS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IMPRINTING How does a relationship emerge between an organization s founding phase and its much later trajectory? According to Stinchcombe s hypothesis, newly founded organizations are shaped by the historically specific resources, such as organizational forms and technologies, upon which their founders initially draw (with more or less success) as they create their organizations. Once founded, these organizations may subsequently survive far into the future with many or all of their founding characteristics intact by means of any one of three processes: (a) they may still be the most efficient form of organization for a given purpose; (b) traditionalizing forces, the vesting of interests and the working out of ideologies may tend to preserve the structure; 1 Arthur L. Stinchcombe, Social Structure and Organizations, pp. 142-193 in Handbook of Organizations, ed. James G. March (New York: Rand McNally, 1965), p. 154. 2 Ibid. 3 Jitendra V. Singh and Charles J. Lumsden, Theory and Research in Organizational Ecology, Annual Review of Sociology 16:161-195 (1990), p. 161.

3 and (c) the organization may not be in a competitive structure in which it has to be better than alternative forms of organization in order to survive. 4 The idea of imprinting thus combines two distinct processes under one hypothesis: (1) the process by which political, cultural, and economic elements of the founding context shape the characteristics of a new organization, and (2) the process by which these founding characteristics are reproduced during the organization s subsequent history. The second of these two processes the reproduction of institutions is far more familiar territory for most sociologists than is the process of founding. Within organization theory, neoinstitutionalists in particular have made the persistence of less-than-optimal institutions one of their primary explanatory tasks, while some of the most important work in cultural sociology in recent decades has emerged from attempts to explain how social action and interaction contribute to institutional reproduction. Given this disproportionate level of attention to institutional reproduction vis-à-vis organizational foundings, I focus in what follows on the process by which elements of a founding context are incorporated into a new organization. The first part of the imprinting process takes place while an organization is being constructed out of elements from its founding context. Once in place, these elements represent a link between the organization and its context, and to the extent that these elements or vestiges thereof remain in place as the organization ages, they constitute a link to the founding context which may be of great causal significance long after the founding phase. Thus the first step in unpacking the imprinting process is understanding the process by which the original relationship between the organization and its founding context is produced. A robust approach to analyzing this process requires attention to the full range of social resources and relationships that contribute to the structure, status, and other characteristics of a newly founded organization. As the prime locus of historical research in organization studies, neoinstitutional theory would seem eminently well suited to the examination of the imprinting process. 5 Nevertheless, as Richard Scott has noted, among institutionalist students of organizations this phenomenon has been much discussed since it was first introduced by Stinchcombe in his seminal essay, but there have been relatively few empirical studies of 4 Stinchcombe, Social Structure and Organizations, p. 169. 5 Historically-oriented work from neoinstitutionalists includes, for example, Elisabeth S. Clemens, The People s Lobby: Organizational Innovation and the Rise of Interest Group Politics in the United States, 1890-1925 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997); Paul J. DiMaggio, The Invention of High Culture (unpub. man., 1990) and Cultural Entrepreneurship in Nineteenth-Century Boston, Parts I and II, Media, Culture and Society 4:33-50, 303-322 (1982); Frank R. Dobbin, Forging Industrial Policy: The United States, Britain, and France in the Railway Age (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994) and The Origins of Economic Principles: Railway Entrepreneurs and Public Policy in Nineteenth-Century America, pp. 277-301 in The Institutional Construction of Organizations, eds. W. Richard Scott and Søren Christensen (London: Sage, 1995); and Frank R. Dobbin and Timothy J. Dowd, How Policy Shapes Competition: Early Railroad Foundings in Massachusetts, Administrative Science Quarterly 42:501-529 (1997).

4 imprinting 6 Indeed, thanks to the specific disciplinary history of their approach, neoinstitutionalists have generally focused their analytical lenses on aspects of organizational life other than foundings. Since their earliest formulations in the 1970s, neoinstitutionalist students of organizations have been interested in explaining the origins of institutions, but they have been far less concerned with explaining the origins of individual organizations through the activities of entrepreneurs. This fact is tied to the strong neoinstitutionalist critique of interest-based theories of organizational behavior, a critique that was especially important in distinguishing early neoinstitutionalist studies from competing approaches. 7 Because organizational change, especially change induced by entrepreneurial activity, did not seem to provide as fertile a ground for institutionalist analysis as did stable organizations, early institutionalists shied away from empirical investigations of the role of entrepreneurs in organizational foundings. Sustained internal criticism of the problem of agency in institutionalist analysis, however, bore fruit in the 1980s and the 1990s, when neoinstitutionalists began developing theories of agency compatible with an institutionalist analysis of organizational behavior. At the same time, neoinstitutionalists produced a spate of empirical studies exploring the role of social actors understood as both interest-driven and shaped by institutionalized meanings in sustaining or transforming organizations and their environments. 8 This research has been crucial in allowing neoinstitutionalist organizational analyses to move beyond the study of static institutions toward the study of the dynamics of institutionalization. This work has also provided neoinstitutionalists with more adequate tools for the study of organizational foundings by directly addressing the role of entrepreneurs in creating and changing organizations. The emerging picture is one that accords with the cultural turn taken in so many domains of the social sciences in the last two decades. Instead of an organizational environment that mechanistically stamps particular features on an organization during its 6 W. Richard Scott, Unpacking Institutional Arguments, pp. 164-182 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, eds. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 178. 7 For discussions of the problem of interests and agency in neoinstitutionalist work, see especially Frank R. Dobbin, Cultural Models of Organization: The Social Construction of Rational Organizing Principles, pp. 117-141 in The Sociology of Culture, ed. Diana Crane (London: Blackwell, 1994) and Paul J. DiMaggio, Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory, pp. 3-21 in Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment, ed. Lynne Zucker (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988). See also Mark C. Suchman, Localism and Globalism in Institutional Analysis, pp. 39-63 in The Institutional Construction of Organizations, eds. Scott and Christensen; Jens Beckert, Agency, Entrepreneurs, and Institutional Change: The Role of Strategic Choice and Institutionalized Practices in Organizations, Organization Studies 20(5):777-799 (1999); and Patricia H. Thornton, The Sociology of Entrepreneurship, Annual Review of Sociology 25:19-46 (1999). 8 These studies include, among others, DiMaggio s work on U.S. museum professionals, Fligstein s account of how managers helped diffuse a new organizational model in American industry, Dobbin s studies of railroad entrepreneurs in the nineteenth century, and Lounsbury and Glynn s work on entrepreneurial storytelling. See Paul J. DiMaggio, Constructing an Organizational Field as a Professional Project: U.S. Art Museums, 1920-1940, pp. 267-292 in The New Institutionalism, eds. Powell and DiMaggio; Neil Fligstein, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985); and Michael Lounsbury and Mary Ann Glynn, Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources, Strategic Management Journal 22:545-564 (2001).

5 founding phase, we find entrepreneurial actors embedded in networks and fields who recombine, according to their power, interests, and positions, resources of all kinds (money, technology, organizational models, legitimating stories) to create new organizations. 9 This picture also accords with recent work by scholars in the field of entrepreneurial studies who have been critical of the longstanding research focus on the psychological traits or social attributes of entrepreneurs. Some of these scholars have called for increased attention to the social context in which entrepreneurial activity takes place, while others have begun to draw on advances in cultural theory to analyze novel dimensions of entrepreneurial activity, including storytelling and the use of metaphor. 10 The present study similarly draws on certain of these advances in order to unpack and analyze the imprinting process. One of the most powerful theoretical tools in use among cultural theorists today is the concept of repertoire. Introduced into social movements research by Charles Tilly in the 1970s as a way of theorizing the types of collective action available to actors in specific historical conjunctures, the concept of repertoire was independently popularized in cultural theory by Ann Swidler in an influential 1986 article. 11 Like the related concepts of schema, tool kit, and script, the concept of repertoire has become an important component of the ongoing effort by cultural theorists to theorize social action as constrained but creative: A culture, Swidler writes, is not a unified system that pushes action in a consistent direction. Rather, it is more like a tool kit or repertoire from which actors select differing pieces for constructing lines of action. 12 In the last decade, the concept of repertoire has been usefully deployed in a variety of empirical contexts. In addition to its widespread use in social movement theory, it has been applied, for example, at the national level by Michèle Lamont, Laurent Thévenot, and their research team to analyze cultural differences between France and the United States. 13 And among students of organizations, Elisabeth Clemens has used the concept of repertoire to explain the production of institutional change in the political arena. [O]rganizational forms are templates, scripts, recipes, or models for social 9 On the idea of recombination, see David Stark, Recombinant Property in East European Capitalism. American Journal of Sociology 101:993-1027 (1996). 10 See, for example, Murray B. Low and Eric Abrahamson, Movements, Bandwagons, and Clones: Industry Evolution and the Entrepreneurial Process, Journal of Business Venturing 12:435-457; Lounsbury and Glynn, Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy, and the Acquisition of Resources ; and Sarah Drakopolou Dodd, Metaphors and Meaning: A Grounded Cultural Model of US Entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Venturing 17:519-535 (2002). 11 Ann Swidler, Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies, American Sociological Review 51:273-286 (1986). Swidler borrows the concept of repertoire from Ulf Hannerz, Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture and Community (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969). 12 Swidler, Culture in Action, p. 277. 13 Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology, eds. Michèle Lamont and Laurent Thévenot (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Scholars who rely on the concept of repertoire to analyze social action usually qualify it as pertaining to a particular domain or dimension of social life. They speak, for example, of cultural repertoires, organizational repertoires, or repertoires of collective action. While such distinctions among different types of repertoires are permissible if they are grounded in a corresponding empirical differentiation of social life rather than mere analytic convenience, the term cultural repertoire in particular is somewhat misleading. All repertoires are cultural by definition, in the sense that they are produced by and help to organize both the taken-for-granted and the normative dimensions of social life.

6 interaction Any individual will be familiar with some set of forms; this set constitutes his or her organizational repertoire. 14 Institutional change, Clemens argues, arises through the transposition and recombination of organizational forms by entrepreneurial actors who are nevertheless constrained by the unequal social distribution of knowledge and power: Like Bourdieu s cultural capital or Swidler s cultural toolkit, organizational repertoires may be characterized by their distribution across different social groups and their relation to existing social or political institutions. This distribution will be the product of socialization, exposure to various organizational models, and the fit or resonance between the two. Thus repertoires of organization vary across groups within a society, among societies, and over time. 15 The process Clemens identifies as a potential source of institutional change is similar to the process by which organizational imprinting takes place. Entrepreneurial actors attempting to found new organizations select, in accordance with their social positions and cultural competence, from among the models in their organizational repertoires, repertoires which have themselves become available to entrepreneurs through previous cultural learning. And when they draw on organizational and other kinds of repertoires products of particular times and places to construct new organizations, entrepreneurs are effectively building history into their enterprise. Like Clemens, I rely on the concept of organizational repertoires to analyze the range of possibilities open to social actors working in the domain of organizational creation or modification. However, instead of theorizing organizational repertoires as being comprised of a collection of organizational models, I extend the artistic metaphor invoked with the concept of repertoire in order to theorize the organizational elements available to social actors as organizational genres. A genre, whether it structures the way people think about works of art or the way they think about organizations themselves, is a set of guidelines arising from a social process of classification according to which multiple art works or multiple organizations are perceived to be instantiations of the same thing. Thus, while the concept of an organizational model is likely to call forth images of social actors consciously working from a clear and complete organizational blueprint, speaking instead of organizational genres calls attention to the social activity of organizational construction on the part of the founder. The process of founding may indeed involve a quite conscious modeling on a successful organizational genre, but it is just as likely to involve the accidental or intentional recombination of elements from multiple genres to create a new organizational form. While organizational genres provide the entrepreneur with many of the elements that will shape the structure, the identity, and the position of the new organization, it is the entrepreneur who does the initial cultural work of selecting elements from the chosen genre(s) to include in the new organization. 14 Clemens, The People s Lobby, p. 49. 15 Elisabeth S. Clemens, Organizational Form as Frame: Collective Identity and Political Strategy in the American Labor Movement, 1880-1920, pp. 205-226 in Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, eds. Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 211.

7 This theoretical emphasis on entrepreneurial creativity vis-à-vis organizational genres is balanced by the bounded nature of organizational repertoires, which offer the entrepreneur a range of choices but which simultaneously limit the genres to which he or she has access, culturally speaking. Furthermore, the ability of an entrepreneur to create the envisioned organization is limited by his or her access to the specific political and economic power dominant in the founding context. And powerful external actors, whether they be individuals (Louis XIV) or corporate bodies (the Paris municipal government) may also play a creative role in addition to a constraining one when they impose particular tasks or structures on an emergent organization. As Clemens has noted of mobilizing groups seeking to create new associations or organizations, [t]o the extent that such groups share repertoires with those in power, they are better able to misapply familiar organizational scripts to new settings. 16 Within cultural, political, and economic limits, therefore, the process of organizational foundings entails the activation and recombination of elements from organizational repertoires by thinking, creative, entrepreneurial actors. Imprinting thus turns out to be an inadequate metaphor for the process by which organizations acquire features specific to their founding contexts. While the term was not Stinchcombe s own, the notion of imprinting came to permeate organization-theoretical discourse regarding the link between the nature of a new organization and the context in which it was founded. 17 And despite frequent references to Stinchcombe s hypothesis by both organizational ecologists and neoinstitutionalists, the actual process currently designated (or masked) by the imprinting concept has received very little attention. Thus this somewhat unfortunate metaphor continues to influence perspectives on environmentorganization relations at founding as well as on the relation between an organization s past and its present or future. Integrating insights from cultural theory and neoinstitutionalism particularly insights into the way social action is structured by cognitive schemas such as organizational repertoires and genres will help organization theory move from the mechanistic imagery of imprinting to an understanding of the process by which a new organization is structured by its founding context. THE FOUNDING OF THE PARIS OPERA The raw materials for a new organization are drawn from the historical context in which it is being founded. These materials include not only organizational genres, legitimizing stories, and production technologies, but also the organization s very goals. 16 Clemens, The People s Lobby, p. 10. 17 See, for example, Charles E. Bamford, Thomas J. Dean, and Patricia McDougall, An Examination of the Impact of Initial Founding Conditions and Decisions Upon the Performance of New Bank Start-Ups, Journal of Business Venturing 15:253-277 (1999), p. 254. Warren Boeker erroneously implies that Stinchcombe himself used the term imprinting forces ; see Boeker, Strategic Change: The Effects of Founding and History, Academy of Management Journal 32(3):489-515 (1989), p. 492. Mayer Zald suggests a less problematic label, calling it the impact of foundations hypothesis (Zald, History, Sociology and Theories of Organization, pp. 81-108 in Institutions in American Society: Essays in Market, Political and Social Organizations, ed. John E. Jackson (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), p. 103.

8 In the case of the Paris Opera, the goal was the creation and establishment of French opera, an issue of passionate artistic importance to the founder and of great political significance to Louis XIV and his minister Colbert. The Paris Opera was founded in 1669, towards the close of a highly consequential decade in the political and cultural life of Louis XIV s France. Upon the death of the chief minister, Mazarin, in 1661 and following Mazarin s own admonitions the twenty-three-year-old king abolished the very post Mazarin had held and took the reins of government into his own hands. Louis subsequent effort to centralize the administration of France and to stabilize the monarchy, extending over the several decades following the death of Mazarin and the commencement of the king s personal reign, would eventually touch on every domain in the administration of France: the judicial system, the structure of government, the policing of cities, the relations among social orders, and foreign, economic, and cultural policy. 18 Louis XIV and his minister Colbert understood the centralization of cultural production as a crucial weapon in Louis XIV s campaigns to stabilize the monarchy. This centralization enabled them to command and coordinate the celebration of the Sun King in words, pictures, and monuments. The monarch and his minister were also motivated by a desire to prove that the French were superior to the Italians in cultural endeavors such as sculpture, architecture, and music. In the performing arts, the situation was especially delicate: though the French were the undisputed masters of dance, the Italians had a virtual monopoly on opera, since no French operatic genre had been established by the 1660s. In this context, the dogged campaign waged by a poet named Pierre Perrin to get ministerial and royal support for his efforts to theorize and produce opera in French was finally greeted with success. In 1669, Pierre Perrin received a privilège a royal license and monopoly for the establishment of the Paris Opera. Though musicologists have all but ignored Pierre Perrin in favor of his immediate successor, the celebrated composer Jean-Baptiste Lully, it was actually in part to an initiative of Perrin s that the Paris Opera would owe its longstanding identity as an organization unique in France. In 1667, Perrin proposed the establishment of an Academy of Poetry and Music whose goal would be to synthesize the French language and French music into an entirely new lyric form, that of French opera. As we will see, Perrin s initial idea was profoundly transformed both by technological imperatives and by state interests during the process of implementation. The collaborative process of organizational creation resulted in an organization unlike any other in existence: the Opera partook of the organizational identity, privilege and prestige of a royal academy while conforming in many respects to the model of the public theater. 18 This process, which included rendering nobles dependent on the court and restricting the power of the Parlement of Paris to challenge royal edicts, has been amply documented by historians of Louis XIV s reign. See, for example, Alexandra Bettag, Die Kunstpolitik Jean Baptiste Colberts (Weimar: VDG, 1998); François Bluche, Louis XIV (London: Blackwell, 1990); Roland Mousnier, The Institutions of France under the Absolute Monarchy, 1598-1789, 2 vols., trans. Brian Pearce and Arthur Goldhammer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979); Roger Mettam, Power and Faction in Louis XIV s France (London: Blackwell, 1988); and Pierre Gaxotte, The Age of Louis XIV, trans. Michael Shaw (New York: Macmillan, 1970).

9 The hybrid, schizophrenic nature of the Opera s early identity is captured in a treatise written a decade after the founding of Perrin s Académie d Opéra. In one section of this work, Perrin is described as having founded the Opera as a public theater, while in another section Louis XIV is described as having founded the same organization as a royal academy: [Perrin and two business partners] undertook to open a public theater where one could perform theatrical works set to Music and composed in French Verse. They obtained permission from the King to do this, & [gave it]...the name of Académie de Musique [sic] to distinguish it from the actors. 19...in 1669, the king, having restored Peace to all of Europe with the Treaty of the Pyrenees [signed in 1659], thought henceforth only of helping the Arts, commerce, Laws, Justice and the Sciences blossom all across his kingdom again. To this end, he established various Academies of Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Physics and Mathematics; and by patent letters of June 28 he accorded to Sieur Perrin, who had been the first to present actions in music in our language, the permission to establish in Paris & other cities of the Kingdom, Academies of Music [sic] to sing theatrical pieces in public, as is the practice in Italy. 20 The early Opera s hybrid nature, so neatly underscored by the co-existence of these two passages in a single contemporary treatise, was to be a major influence on its subsequent history. The process by which the Opera emerged as a hybrid organization is thus the process by which it acquired long-lived and causally significant organizational characteristics. In order to begin to construct an explanation of this process, I turn now to the founder and his social and cultural trajectory, moving in the following section to an examination of the political context in which this founder formulated and tried to implement his entrepreneurial agenda. Pierre Perrin Born in Lyon around 1620, Pierre Perrin was attached to the household of Gaston d Orléans by the early 1650s, when he is mentioned in an official document as Conseiller et Maistre d Hostel ordinaire du Roy et de Son Altesse Royale Madame la duchesse d Orléans. 21 In 1653, Perrin married a wealthy and much older widow named Elisabeth Grisson, who helped him purchase the post of Introducteur des ambassadeurs et princes étrangers in the Orléans household. The choice of this household was a natural one for an aspiring poet, since Gaston was a patron of the great Molière. 22 In 1653, however, the duke was exiled to his château at Blois for his part in the period of civil war known as the 19 Claude-François Ménestrier, Des Répresentations en musique anciennes et modernes (1681; reprint, Geneva: Minkoff, 1972), pp. 209-210. 20 Ibid., pp. 235-236. 21 Charles Nuitter and Ernest Thoinan, Les Origines de l Opéra Français (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1886), p. 10. 22 Demuth, French Opera, p. 97.

10 Fronde (1648-1653). Perrin, based in Paris, had no further ambassadeurs to introduce, and though he did not lose his post, he was never paid. 23 By the time Gaston died at Blois in 1660, Perrin had long since turned his attentions to gaining patronage for his literary efforts from a far more powerful figure, the minister Mazarin. Perrin had published his first collection of poetry in his mid-twenties under the title (eccentric even by seventeenth-century standards) Various Insects: Works of Poetry, in which he extolled the fine qualities of the flea, the silkworm and other tiny creatures. As early as 1648, Perrin had dedicated a work to Mazarin, namely the first six books of a much-ridiculed verse translation of Virgil s Aeneid. 24 This work soon brought Perrin a certain degree (and a certain kind) of celebrity, but his real ambition was to create poetry in French that was suitable for musical setting, and in 1655 he published the first of many poems written expressly for this purpose. Perrin was one of the first poets to contravene the conventional wisdom (firmly espoused at this time by none other than the future father of French opera himself), which held that there was as yet no French opera for the simple reason that the language was intrinsically unmusical. Given the perceived unsuitability of the language, very few believed that there ever could be such a thing as French opera, but Perrin persisted in attributing the dearth of French opera to a mere lack of adequate talent. The creation of truly lyric poetry, he wrote in 1666, that is to say, suitable for being sung...with an instrument...demands a very particular kind of genius and an artistry, which, I dare to put forward...has been almost unknown until now by all ancient and modern poets alike, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish and French, among whom one finds few or no Orphées, that is to say musical poets or poetic musicians, who have understood how to marry the two sisters of poetry and music. 25 Perrin mounted his challenge to the prevailing skepticism toward the idea of French opera gradually at first, producing collections of lyric poetry in a wide range of genres. A 1661 collection was advertised as containing airs de cour, airs à boire, chansons, noëls et motets, as well as a more ambitiously conceived comédie en musique. 26 One measure of Perrin s increasing success with this approach is that his lyric poetry was set to music by many prominent composers of the day, including Michel Lambert (who in 1662 became Lully s father-in-law) and Robert Cambert, the future surintendant de la musique to the queen mother. It was Cambert who, in 1659, became a partner in the most ambitious venture of Perrin s career to date: a musical drama performed in French and entirely foregoing 23 Nuitter and Thoinan, Les Origines, p. 25. 24 Perrin, L Énéide de Virgile, traduite en vers françois. Premiere partie, contenant les six premiers livres, avec les remarques du traducteur aux marges (Paris: P. Moreau, 1648). In 1658, Perrin brought out the final six volumes as L Énéide de Virgile, traduite en vers héroïques avec le latin à costé...seconde partie, contenant les six derniers livres, par messire P. Perrin (Paris: E. Loyson, 1658). 25 Perrin, Avant-Propos, in Recueil des Paroles de Musique de Mr. Perrin, Conseiller du Roy en ses Conseils, Introducteur des Ambassadeurs pres feu Monseigneur le Duc d'orléans. 26 Perrin, Les Oeuvres de poésie de Mr. Perrin, contenant tous les jeux de poésie, diverses poésies galantes, des paroles de musique, airs de cour, airs à boire, chansons, noëls et motets, une comédie en musique, l Entrée de la reyne, et la Chartreuse... (Paris: E. Loyson, 1661).

11 spoken dialogue. Although it remains a point of contention among musicologists of the French seventeenth century whether the initial idea for this experiment came from Cambert or Perrin, credit is generally given to and was inevitably taken by the latter. 27 Regardless of whose idea it was, however, the project s originality was obvious to all and it was greeted with great acclaim, bringing glory to both men, at least for a time. The Pastorale d Issy In April 1659, Pierre Perrin and his collaborator Cambert made the case for French opera as forcefully as anyone yet had by staging a wildly successful Pastorale, which they billed, though not explicitly as an opera, as the première comédie françoise en musique représentée en France. 28 The work was put on ten times that month before an overflow crowd of courtiers and bourgeois at the country residence of the Marquis de la Haye in Issy, a village just outside Paris. 29 Perrin later explained that he had chosen Issy in order to avoid the crowd of people who would undoubtedly have besieged us had we given this work in the middle of Paris. 30 But the so-called Pastorale d Issy quickly became the talk of Paris, and overflow crowds materialized despite the obscure location. The Pastorale little resembled the sumptuous spectacles that had been staged by visiting Italian troupes of the 1640s and 1650s. The work was performed in an airy room decorated with flowers from the surrounding garden instead of with spectacular sets and 27 Nuitter and Thoinan, Les Origines, p. 32-34, argue that Cambert probably had the idea first, citing a letter in which the normally very modest and retiring composer described how, Having always had in mind the idea of introducing comédies en musique such as were done in Italy, he wrote a three-voice musical dialogue which Perrin heard and which inspired the latter to propose that they collaborate on a fullscale music drama. This letter, now in the archives of the Comédie-Française, is also quoted by Ariane Ducrot, Lully créateur de troupe, Dix-septième siècle 98-99:91-107 (1973), p. 92, and by Jérôme de La Gorce, L Opéra à Paris au temps de Louis XIV (Paris: Desjonquères, 1992), p. 11. 28 Première comédie françoise en musique représentée en France. Pastorale, mise en musique par M. Cambert. Paris: R. Ballard, 1659. BN. Castil-Blaze (L Académie Impériale de Musique, p. 32) rejects the idea that the Pastorale was the first completely musical drama in French, citing the 1646 performance in Carpentras of a work called Akébar, roi du Mogol; still others (e.g., Prunières, L Opéra italien en France avant Lulli [Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion, 1923], pp. 344-345) cite the 1655 pastorale Le Triomphe de l Amour sur des bergers et bergères, by Charles de Beys and Michel de la Guerre. The first French work designated with the title opera would not appear until 1669, with Perrin and Cambert s Pomone, which will be discussed below. Demuth (French Opera, p. 105) notes that the term opera did not come into general use in French until after 1690, and it was some time before it was given a French inflection, with an accent and an s in the plural. 29 De la Haye is described by La Gorce (L Opéra à Paris, p. 87, n. 1), probably following Nuitter and Thoinan (Les Origines, p. 43), as an orfèvre du roi a goldsmith in the king s service. Isherwood (Music in the Service of the King, p. 171) claims that he was the queen mother s maître d hôtel. 30 Cited by Nuitter and Thoinan, Les Origines, p. 46, from a letter written by Perrin to the Archbishop of Turin. This letter gives a very detailed account both of the performances of the Pastorale and of Perrin s understanding of the differences between Italian opera and his work, and it is therefore a document of extreme importance to the founding of the Paris Opera. It has been drawn on extensively by almost every his torian of early French opera, including Demuth, French Opera, pp. 101-103; Isherwood, Music in the Service of the King, pp. 171-172; and La Gorce, L Opéra à Paris, p. 12, though not cited specifically.

12 special effects. Like Italian operas and setting a standard for future operas in French, the Pastorale was composed of five acts. However, these acts lacked the overarching coherence of the French operas of the next decades; Isherwood has described them as a series of vaguely related short tableaux in which arias, recitatives, and dialogues were sung by sylvan deities and shepherds. 31 Vague or not, both the simplicity of the subject and the extreme clarity with which the seven men and women sang their French texts were delightful to an audience easily fatigued by Italian opera. All these innovations, Perrin noted later, attracted such a crowd of...princes, dukes and peers...that the entire road from Issy to Paris was covered with their carriages. 32 Perrin was describing the scene from hearsay, since he had not actually been able to attend the performances himself or the rehearsals, for that matter. He had been in jail since the twenty-third of January, a situation indirectly resulting from his unfortunate and shortlived marriage to the widow Grisson. 33 Although his wife s money had helped him acquire the post he sought with the Orléans family, her grown son had soon persuaded her that she had been duped, and she asked for an annulment. 34 Perrin had been forced to borrow substantial sums to add to what he had borrowed from his wife to make up the 30,000 livres required for the purchase of his post. When he defaulted, his creditors had taken him to court. After his ex-wife s death, these same creditors went after Perrin s exson-in-law, Gabriel Bizet de la Barroire, who himself retaliated by pursuing Perrin in court for the next twenty years. Unfortunately for Perrin, La Barroire was a councillor in the Parlement of Paris, and it was thanks to him that Perrin would be in and out of the Paris jails for the rest of his life. Perrin s absence from Issy did not tarnish the success of the Pastorale in the least, and Mazarin himself had it performed at his residence at Vincennes in May 1659 in the presence of Louis XIV. This performance pleased the cardinal and the king so much that Cambert and Perrin were invited to write another music drama in French, and the two set to work at once on a more ambitious work entitled Ariane, ou Le mariage de Bacchus. To their great disappointment, Mazarin died in 1661 during the rehearsals, and the work was cancelled. But despite this setback, they could rest secure in the knowledge that they had taken the first steps towards proving that the French language could indeed be set to music gracefully, and that the establishment of French opera was a reasonable and desirable ambition. Perrin, at least, credited himself with a number of improvements over Italian opera, citing the brevity of the work as a whole and of the recitatives in particular, the economical distribution of solos (only one per role), the simplicity of the subject matter and emotional themes, and reigning supreme among the Pastorale s accomplishments its elegant and natural sung French verse. 35 31 Isherwood, Music in the Service of the King, p. 173. Cambert s music did not survive, but Perrin s text was published under the title Première comédie françoise en musique représentée en France. Pastorale, mise en musique par M. Cambert (Paris: R. Ballard, 1659). 32 Cited by Castil-Blaze, L Académie Impériale de Musique, p. 20. 33 Nuitter and Thoinan, Les Origines, pp. 42-43. 34 Ibid., p. 21. 35 Summarized from the letter to the Archbishop of Turin by Demuth, French Opera, pp. 102-103.

13 Though Mazarin s death temporarily dampened Perrin s hopes for increased court support for the development of French opera, the project eventually attracted the attention of Colbert, who was engaged in the 1660s in consolidating French cultural production against Italian encroachments. Perrin s concerted efforts to win Colbert s support finally bore fruit toward the end of the decade, when the Académie d Opéra was created as part of a cluster of royal academies whose focus was the celebration of the reign of Louis XIV. The Campaign for French Opera Perrin was released from jail in September 1659, but he was back less than five months later, at the instigation of La Barroire, and he was to spend much of the 1660s in this cycle of incarceration, release, and renewed incarceration. His prison stints were nonetheless highly productive. Hearing in his jail cell the news that Mazarin had requested a follow-up piece to the Pastorale d Issy, Perrin immediately began work on Ariane and completed the libretto upon his release. When the death of Mazarin in 1661 put the plans for this work on hold, Perrin divided his time between publishing his poetry, fleeing his creditors, and sitting in jail. In April 1666, after six months at the Conciergerie, Perrin signed an agreement with his son-in-law that granted him a reprieve of two years. The consequences of non-payment at the end of that time would be severe, but Perrin jumped at the chance to get out and stay out, at least for a while. Still dogged in his courtship of the powerful, Perrin dedicated a collection of his poetry to Colbert in 1667, who, though less powerful than Mazarin had been, still exercised considerable sway in the country s affairs, especially those touching the arts. In the preface to the collection he dedicated to Colbert, Perrin quite intentionally touches a sore political nerve by pointing out the obvious superiority of the Italians in music and poetry as well as in the operatic synthesis of these two arts: In truth, Monseigneur, I dare say to you that it is fitting to the glory of the King and of France not to suffer that a Nation that is victorious in all other things should be vanquished by foreigners in the knowledge of these two arts, Poetry and Music, in which...the Italians have for a few years surpassed us by far. For my part, Monseigneur, I am touched by a strong desire, not only to imitate them and show that our Poetry is capable of the same beauties as theirs and that it has the same advantages for music; but even to show to all Europe that we can improve on their knowledge and their intentions... 36 Four years later, in the preface to the libretto of the first work that he would mount at his new opera house, Perrin rehearsed similar arguments in favor of a truly French operatic tradition, arguments he had been making to anyone who would listen for much of the decade. 37 In this preface, Perrin systematically presents the objections that had been made against French opera and explains how he envisioned overcoming them. First, partisans of French opera would have to overcome the resistance of those who 36 Perrin, Avant-Propos, in Recueil, n.p. 37 Perrin, Avant-Propos placé en tête de l argument de Pomone (Paris, 1669).

14 believed that France s unsurpassed accomplishments in the realm of spoken drama could never be equalled by sung drama. Perrin argued that sung drama, by virtue of its musical setting, possessed specific powers that could not only match spoken drama, but even surpass it: [O]ne must admit that musical expressions have a completely different power from that of recited plays, that quite often they touch the heart more intensely in two verses than do the others in fifty, and that the sung word, with its changes in tone, inflections, emphasis, anger, gentleness and the ringing sound of the voice, all express more immediately, more agreeably, and with more variety the transports of the soul, than can the unison of the recited word. And if to this beauty one adds that of the Harmony of the chords, which melt the heart and prepare it for the impressions that one wants to convey, the advantage of having various characters expressing simultaneously in an agreeable way the same sentiments, sometimes to have them say the same words together in a conflicting sense...and a thousand other games particular to words set to music, it would not be difficult to prefer them in all things and to make the most obstinate people confess that these kinds of Spectacles unite all the great & honest pleasures... 38 Despite these heartfelt convictions, Perrin also acknowledged that there was much work to be done if a French operatic tradition was to be firmly established. Not only would potential audiences have to be brought around, but the infrastructure necessary for operatic production would have to be constructed nearly from scratch. It was undeniable that France lacked Italy s marvelous singing actors and the wizardry of its set designers, but with hard work and patience, Perrin argued, these obstacles could be overcome. Paris was, after all, the dancing school of all nations, and the resources France possessed in its celebrated dancers, choreographers, and costume designers would partially compensate for French backwardness when it came to other crucial elements of opera performance. 39 These are the reasons, Perrin wrote at the conclusion of his apologie for French opera, that have guided me in this enterprise & for which I have remained determined to persevere despite all the chatterings of ignorant Criticism & all the misunderstandings of the envious, which have been infinite during the two years that I have been laboring at this great work, [and which would have been] too great indeed & too far beyond the power of a single individual, if the King had not had the generosity to support me with his authority... 40 In the end, the single most persuasive argument in support of French opera would be the wild success of Perrin s first operatic production at his new Académie d Opéra, but given the intense scepticism he had encountered for the last two decades, even the overly-confident Perrin could hardly have foreseen the acclaim that would greet his first effort at full-scale French operatic performance. But neither could he have foreseen that, even with royal support, the enterprise of the Paris Opera would indeed outstrip the power of a single individual or at least those of this particular individual. Spectacular 38 Ibid., p. 3. 39 Ibid., p. 6 and p. 14. 40 Ibid., p. 16.

15 collapse was to follow hard on early success. For the time being, though, Perrin s arguments won over both Colbert and Louis XIV. On June 28, 1669, the king signed the Privilège accordé au Sieur Perrin pour l établissement d une Académie d Opéra en musique, & Vers François. The Paris Opera was born prematurely, it would later appear. ORGANIZATIONAL REPERTOIRES IN THE FOUNDING OF THE OPERA The founding of the Paris Opera as part of the royal academy system was of decisive importance in the Opera s position and trajectory at least as late as 1807, when Napoleon restored to it its Old Regime position and privileges. Though musicologists have overlooked the hybrid nature of the early Opera, its ties to the academy system shaped the entire field of French theater for more than a century and helped it survive the French Revolution. It is true that the Opera resembled other theaters in structure and operations far more than it did the other royal academies, but its organizational identity and national even international position were in large part the result of its academy status. How did it acquire this status? Why was the Opera founded as a hybrid of academy and theater rather than simply as a theater? The answer lies in several places: in the novelty of the art form in question, in the entrepreneurial vision of Pierre Perrin, in the organizational repertoires of seventeenth-century France, and in the political interests of Louis XIV and his minister Colbert. French Opera, Royal Patronage, and Cultural Entrepreneurialism Opera had first come to France from the Italian states, of course, where it had, by the mid-seventeenth century, broadened its production base from court-sponsored private performances to include public theaters boasting lengthy seasons. 41 Familiar with the Barberini family s operatic productions in Rome, the Italian Mazarin invited many accomplished Italian singers, composers, librettists and set designers to work their magic at the French court in the 1640s. 42 While the Italians vocal fireworks and florid music were received with little enthusiasm, the fantastic sets and machines mechanical contraptions designed to lower chariots, storms, gods, and other awe-inspiring phenomena from the heavens quickly captured the French imagination and would eventually constitute a major element of Lully s operas. Another means by which the visiting Italian troupes courted French audiences was the addition of ballet entrées to their operas, which were performed between the acts to 41 For an overview of the institutional bases of opera production and consumption in seventeenth-century Italy, see Lorenzo Bianconi and Thomas Walker, Production, Consumption, and Political Function of Seventeenth-Century Opera, Early Music History (1984):209-274. 42 For an account of papal operatic patronage, see Margaret Murata, Operas for the Papal Court (Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981). On the first opera experiments in Paris under Mazarin, see Neal Zaslaw, The First Opera in Paris: A Study in the Politics of Art, pp. 7-23 in Jean-Baptiste Lully, ed. John Hajdu Heyer.